WSP03064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STUDY #2: WATER QUALITY The extent of the relationship of this study to the Water Quality Study is similar to that ident- ified for the Instream Flow Study. That relation- ship is dependent upon the extent that ground- water property rights alternatives encourage or discourage use of water in areas where con- tamination by nitrates or other pollutants is a direct result of the application of supplemental water and chemicals. STUDY #3: GROUNDWATER RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT This study and the Groundwater Reservoir Management Study dated March, 1982 are very closely related in all respects. In fact, the subject matter addressed by this study could have been, and perhaps should have been, dealt with at that time. As a result, policy makers could benefit from information generated in that report when con- sidering alternatives identified in this one. A particularly close relationship with the Groundwater Reservoir Management Study is found in Alternatives # 10, # 11, and # 12 in this report. Those alternatives present ways of alloca- ting particular quantities of groundwater among prospective users. They are direct alternative ways to achieve whatever groundwater reservoir management objectives are being sought. The other alternatives in this report are also closely related to the Groundwater Reservoir Management Study, but somewhat less directly. The first five alternatives, all of which approach the issue from the standpoint of the landowner's property right in the groundwater supply, would have different impacts on the ability to publicly manage groundwater supplies. If Alternative #2 were adopted, the options for public manage- ment would be severely limited. Alternatives #3 and #4 more closely approach current Nebraska law and would allow considerable flexibility in that regard. The effect of Alternative #5 in this respect cannot be determined. The next four Alternatives, #6 through #9, all specify liability rules between competing users. Their effect on groundwater use would depend upon the type and extent of the liabilities created. The greater the potential liability to other users, the more groundwater utilization would be dis- couraged. Alternative #6 imposes a very limited liability and as a result would probably not dis- courage groundwater use to any great extent. On the other hand, Alternative #7 could prove to be a 4-2 significant impediment to additional develop- ments in some areas. The effects of Alternative #8 would depend upon the specific uses given a preference. The final alternative in this cate- gory,#9, would not, if implemented, be expected to have a significant effect upon the amount of use because of practical limitations on its appli- cation. It might be more costly to attempt to assess comparative cause than to remedy the problem. STUDY #4: WATER USE EFFICIENCY Many of the alternatives in this study are also closely related to the Water Use Efficiency Study because they would encourage or discourage efficient use of water. Alternative #2 would provide the least encouragement for eliminating waste, while Alternatives #3 through #5 would provide some incentive for efficiency, as would Alternative #6. Also directly encouraging more efficient use would be Alternatives # 11 and # 12. If each landowner knew exactly how much water could be utilized, it is likely that landowners would choose the most efficient use possible and feasible under the circumstances. STUDY #5: SELECTED WATER RIGHTS ISSUES Drainage of Diffused Surface Water. The only portion of the drainage report significantly re- lated to this report is the portion dealing with wetlands. In some areas groundwater usage can contribute to or cause the loss of wetlands. Any effect of the alternatives in this report on that usage could, therefore, affect the retention of those wetlands. Preferences in the Use of Water, Alternative #8 in this report is directly related to the preferences report forwarded by the Commission in October of 1981. In fact, Alternative #8 would essentially codify the present law of Nebraska by combining (1) the current statutory preferences system and (2) the judicial application of that system as a. means for resolving conflicts between different types of groundwater users. Beneficial Use. Of the four major subject areas addressed in a draft report on Beneficial Use, only one is significantly related to this study. That subject area is the application of beneficial use as a method of limiting waste. The relationships between that portion of the Beneficial Use Study and this study are the same as those noted above for the Water Use Efficiency Study.